[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [emergency-msg] EM-Msg Meeting Minutes for 01-31-06
Hi Again, Everyone, Tim noticed that I had inadvertently sent the minutes for 1-17-06, so I am sending this again and hoping that this is correct. I don't understand how the versions got scrambled since when I opened the version I sent from my out box it was correct, but when I opened the one from the maiiling list it was incorrect. Also when I opened the only copy I have of the file itself, it was correct? Perhaps this is due to my practice of doing a save as of the last minutes to keep the format the same, and then change the dates and the the actual information. Let me know if this comes through incorrectly again. As you can see, the minutes contained in the body of the message is correct. Strange... Hi Everyone, I have included the minutes in the body of this message, attached the docuement, and I will upload it as well to the SC document repository. Here are the Minutes of our last meeting, EM-Msg Meeting January 31, 2006 Minutes Roll: Voting Members: Gary Ham, Patti Aymond, Rex Brooks, Sukumar Dwarkanath Voting Members Probationary Tim Grapes Lee Ticher Dave Ellis Non-Voting Members: Michelle Raymond Carl Reed We had a quorum, and accepted the minutes of the previous meeting. Our agenda was posted prior to the meeting: 1. Review work plan 2. Discuss Task Groups: EDXL_RM Spec, Hospital AVailability Exchange Spec 3. Review EDXL-RM Submission & Requirements Supplement 4. Issues Disussion 1. We briefly reviewed our work plans. We learned that Michelle's OASIS membership is being ironed out, and she indicated her willingness to resume Editor duties for the EDXL_DE specification when she can, so that Patti can assume the Co-Editor duties for the EDXL_RM with Dr. Renato Iannella. 2. Sukumar indicated his wllingness to lead the HAVE specification effort, and also informed us that he would be taking a leave of absence for a month following next week's TC meeting, returning March 7, 2006. In the meantime, Tim Grapes volunteered to carry the effort forward and Rex said he would participate in that effort. It was decided to table the issue of scheduling the EDXL_RM and HAVE Task Groups which we have decided to use as the means for moving both of these specification efforts forward more or less simultaneously. We will bring this issue up to the TC next week in order to see what the overall TC thinks of it and how we should proceed. 3. We began reviewing the EDXL_RM Dave asked, as had Renato previously, if we needed to write a completely new requirements document and we clarified that we will use this as the starting point, and add any additional requirements we discover as we go through this process. 4. Patti asked what was intended by Requirement 2: Process: RM standards must support processes of finding, requesting and getting resources to an incident or event, demobilization and return from the incident or event, tracking resource time-line and status of all types of resources. We clarified this intent to mean that this was more a scope statement than a process statement, but we did not take a decision to change the keyword from process to scope because this discussion immediately led to a second question: Patti then asked what was meant by Requirement 1: EDXL_RM is dependent on EDXL_DM. We discovered EDXL_DM was a typographical error, and should have been EDXL_DE, and decided to amend this unqualified statement to read: EDXL_RM has no independent routing mechanism, so requires a routing mechanism consistent with the EDXL_DE DistributionTypes. It was determined that this is consistent with the understanding that the clarification of the EDXL_DE question of cardinality with regard to contentObjects is that EDXL_DE may contain multiple contentObjects with one and only one payload each, that EDXL_DE may have one and only one DistributionType, and that no contentObjects could be of a type different than the DistributionType. Tim noted that in the course of National Capital Region Pilot Program which is using EDXL drafts, a need for inventory requests has surfaced. It was also pointed out that this pilot program must also follow the existing and evolving NIEM constraints. Our conclusion was that such a constraint will, at the least, keep us aware of the contingency. Dave asked if there was a need for reply requirements, but our thinking appears to have reached an interim consensus that this is covered by the response message types, while we also concluded that considering this detail was premature at this point in the process. The meeting adjourned -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]